The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

It's always hilarious to hear people who likely got a C-plus in that one econ class they had to take in college suddenly proclaim themselves to be economists. If they ever had advanced past Econ 101, they'd realize that every single Yimby idea is not realistic.

https://x.com/fuelgrannie/status/1825341786102907010?t=qf9mPEjfBioCRdVIHI53pw&s=19

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If housing is a human right, then YIMBYs are part of the core problem.

https://www.housingisahumanright.org/what-is-a-yimby-hint-its-not-good/

These are the YIMBYs, people:

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sb-827-rallies-end-with-yimbys-shouting-down-protesters-of-color/article_42f1bb0c-c4c5-5401-a395-5aff1b28137c.html

NOVA YIMBYs are overwhelmingly white with a maybe a southeast Asian or two, one or two African Americans, and with a penchant for patronizing and condescending to lower income POC, or people they deem beneath their overly-educated standards.

They use lower income POC as props for accusing other people of racism when they oppose housing. And then when people point out that the housing won’t be affordable for lower income people they ask “who said it would????????”

Because the NIMBY plan to reduce housing cost is... what exactly?

Neither YIMBYs nor NIMBYs have a “plan to reduce housing cost.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's always hilarious to hear people who likely got a C-plus in that one econ class they had to take in college suddenly proclaim themselves to be economists. If they ever had advanced past Econ 101, they'd realize that every single Yimby idea is not realistic.

https://x.com/fuelgrannie/status/1825341786102907010?t=qf9mPEjfBioCRdVIHI53pw&s=19

They give themselves away by posting things like “it’s almost as if supply and demand had something to do with this.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If housing is a human right, then YIMBYs are part of the core problem.

https://www.housingisahumanright.org/what-is-a-yimby-hint-its-not-good/

These are the YIMBYs, people:

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sb-827-rallies-end-with-yimbys-shouting-down-protesters-of-color/article_42f1bb0c-c4c5-5401-a395-5aff1b28137c.html

NOVA YIMBYs are overwhelmingly white with a maybe a southeast Asian or two, one or two African Americans, and with a penchant for patronizing and condescending to lower income POC, or people they deem beneath their overly-educated standards.

They use lower income POC as props for accusing other people of racism when they oppose housing. And then when people point out that the housing won’t be affordable for lower income people they ask “who said it would????????”

Because the NIMBY plan to reduce housing cost is... what exactly?

Neither YIMBYs nor NIMBYs have a “plan to reduce housing cost.”

Their plan is to address the problem via supply and demand. However, they are unlikely to create sufficient supply to make any difference. Any marginal increase in supply will be immediately consumed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If housing is a human right, then YIMBYs are part of the core problem.

https://www.housingisahumanright.org/what-is-a-yimby-hint-its-not-good/

These are the YIMBYs, people:

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sb-827-rallies-end-with-yimbys-shouting-down-protesters-of-color/article_42f1bb0c-c4c5-5401-a395-5aff1b28137c.html

NOVA YIMBYs are overwhelmingly white with a maybe a southeast Asian or two, one or two African Americans, and with a penchant for patronizing and condescending to lower income POC, or people they deem beneath their overly-educated standards.

They use lower income POC as props for accusing other people of racism when they oppose housing. And then when people point out that the housing won’t be affordable for lower income people they ask “who said it would????????”

Because the NIMBY plan to reduce housing cost is... what exactly?

Neither YIMBYs nor NIMBYs have a “plan to reduce housing cost.”

Their plan is to address the problem via supply and demand. However, they are unlikely to create sufficient supply to make any difference. Any marginal increase in supply will be immediately consumed.

Right. They misunderstand the business cycle so they keep supporting things that are pro-developer but aren’t actually pro-development or pro-supply. They don’t have a plan to reduce housing cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If housing is a human right, then YIMBYs are part of the core problem.

https://www.housingisahumanright.org/what-is-a-yimby-hint-its-not-good/

These are the YIMBYs, people:

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sb-827-rallies-end-with-yimbys-shouting-down-protesters-of-color/article_42f1bb0c-c4c5-5401-a395-5aff1b28137c.html

NOVA YIMBYs are overwhelmingly white with a maybe a southeast Asian or two, one or two African Americans, and with a penchant for patronizing and condescending to lower income POC, or people they deem beneath their overly-educated standards.

They use lower income POC as props for accusing other people of racism when they oppose housing. And then when people point out that the housing won’t be affordable for lower income people they ask “who said it would????????”

Because the NIMBY plan to reduce housing cost is... what exactly?

Neither YIMBYs nor NIMBYs have a “plan to reduce housing cost.”

Their plan is to address the problem via supply and demand. However, they are unlikely to create sufficient supply to make any difference. Any marginal increase in supply will be immediately consumed.

Right. They misunderstand the business cycle so they keep supporting things that are pro-developer but aren’t actually pro-development or pro-supply. They don’t have a plan to reduce housing cost.

And the costs of this development are incurred almost entirely by the jurisdiction that upzones, but the benefits from potential tax revenue and economic growth are much more diffuse. Poorly designed upzoning is a textbook example of socialized losses for the county and privatized gains for developers.

[Anonymous]

The YIMBY astroturfing for developers' interests has one inherent flaw: Developers prefer to build only when housing prices already are high. If, as YIMBYs claim, building more will lead to lower housing prices, developers will simply stop building because it's not worth it to them, financially.

https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/apartment-construction-is-slowing-and-investors-are-betting-on-higher-rents-56bceeb3?st=40xs07h4docnom5&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

This is happening in Austin, which YIMBYs frequently point to as a success when it's far from it.

"Austin, Texas, where asking rents have fallen more than anywhere else, is also the city dialing down construction the most, CoStar said." ...

"Most apartment developers today build high-end units for middle- and upper-income households, which have little impact on the affordable-housing shortage. Lower-cost rentals—the kind most in need by low- and moderate-income households—remain scarce and are rarely built without a government subsidy."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If housing is a human right, then YIMBYs are part of the core problem.

https://www.housingisahumanright.org/what-is-a-yimby-hint-its-not-good/

These are the YIMBYs, people:

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sb-827-rallies-end-with-yimbys-shouting-down-protesters-of-color/article_42f1bb0c-c4c5-5401-a395-5aff1b28137c.html

NOVA YIMBYs are overwhelmingly white with a maybe a southeast Asian or two, one or two African Americans, and with a penchant for patronizing and condescending to lower income POC, or people they deem beneath their overly-educated standards.

Except for, you know, the NCAAP supporting pro-housing legislation because they understand Econ 101. But yeah, other than that you are entirely correct! (meaning, totally wrong)

Of course, the NAACP (assuming you mean the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and not whatever NCAAP might be) support pro-housing legislation. They have gotten royal screwed by white gentrifiers and will continue to be screwed over by Missing Middle. One of the few African American NoVa YIMBYs runs the Arlington NAACP. He is working to keep missing middle out of the few remaining African American neighborhoods like Johnson's Hill, Green Valley, Halls Hill and Highview Park. He is also advocating for actual affordable housing rental units to house the people being displaced by gentrification. A Thanksgiving tradition for decades, the Halls Hill turkey bowl team now had two residents of Halls Hill on the team. The others have been gentrified out of the community where most of them had lived for years.

In addition to Econ 101 I understand politics 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If housing is a human right, then YIMBYs are part of the core problem.

https://www.housingisahumanright.org/what-is-a-yimby-hint-its-not-good/

These are the YIMBYs, people:

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sb-827-rallies-end-with-yimbys-shouting-down-protesters-of-color/article_42f1bb0c-c4c5-5401-a395-5aff1b28137c.html

NOVA YIMBYs are overwhelmingly white with a maybe a southeast Asian or two, one or two African Americans, and with a penchant for patronizing and condescending to lower income POC, or people they deem beneath their overly-educated standards.

Except for, you know, the NCAAP supporting pro-housing legislation because they understand Econ 101. But yeah, other than that you are entirely correct! (meaning, totally wrong)

Of course, the NAACP (assuming you mean the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and not whatever NCAAP might be) support pro-housing legislation. They have gotten royal screwed by white gentrifiers and will continue to be screwed over by Missing Middle. One of the few African American NoVa YIMBYs runs the Arlington NAACP. He is working to keep missing middle out of the few remaining African American neighborhoods like Johnson's Hill, Green Valley, Halls Hill and Highview Park. He is also advocating for actual affordable housing rental units to house the people being displaced by gentrification. A Thanksgiving tradition for decades, the Halls Hill turkey bowl team now had two residents of Halls Hill on the team. The others have been gentrified out of the community where most of them had lived for years.

In addition to Econ 101 I understand politics 101.

So he acknowledges missing middle destroys existing communities and their residents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If housing is a human right, then YIMBYs are part of the core problem.

https://www.housingisahumanright.org/what-is-a-yimby-hint-its-not-good/

These are the YIMBYs, people:

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sb-827-rallies-end-with-yimbys-shouting-down-protesters-of-color/article_42f1bb0c-c4c5-5401-a395-5aff1b28137c.html

NOVA YIMBYs are overwhelmingly white with a maybe a southeast Asian or two, one or two African Americans, and with a penchant for patronizing and condescending to lower income POC, or people they deem beneath their overly-educated standards.

Except for, you know, the NCAAP supporting pro-housing legislation because they understand Econ 101. But yeah, other than that you are entirely correct! (meaning, totally wrong)

Of course, the NAACP (assuming you mean the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and not whatever NCAAP might be) support pro-housing legislation. They have gotten royal screwed by white gentrifiers and will continue to be screwed over by Missing Middle. One of the few African American NoVa YIMBYs runs the Arlington NAACP. He is working to keep missing middle out of the few remaining African American neighborhoods like Johnson's Hill, Green Valley, Halls Hill and Highview Park. He is also advocating for actual affordable housing rental units to house the people being displaced by gentrification. A Thanksgiving tradition for decades, the Halls Hill turkey bowl team now had two residents of Halls Hill on the team. The others have been gentrified out of the community where most of them had lived for years.

In addition to Econ 101 I understand politics 101.

I am impressed by the YIMBY marketing. A bunch of white middle class libertarians have embraced trickle down theory and applied it to housing and yet have somehow branded themselves as progressives?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If housing is a human right, then YIMBYs are part of the core problem.

https://www.housingisahumanright.org/what-is-a-yimby-hint-its-not-good/[/quote]

These are the YIMBYs, people:

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sb-827-rallies-end-with-yimbys-shouting-down-protesters-of-color/article_42f1bb0c-c4c5-5401-a395-5aff1b28137c.html[/quote]

NOVA YIMBYs are overwhelmingly white with a maybe a southeast Asian or two, one or two African Americans, and with a penchant for patronizing and condescending to lower income POC, or people they deem beneath their overly-educated standards. [/quote]

Except for, you know, the NCAAP supporting pro-housing legislation because they understand Econ 101. But yeah, other than that you are entirely correct! (meaning, totally wrong)[/quote]

Of course, the NAACP (assuming you mean the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and not whatever NCAAP might be) support pro-housing legislation. They have gotten royal screwed by white gentrifiers and will continue to be screwed over by Missing Middle. One of the few African American NoVa YIMBYs runs the Arlington NAACP. He is working to keep missing middle out of the few remaining African American neighborhoods like Johnson's Hill, Green Valley, Halls Hill and Highview Park. He is also advocating for actual affordable housing rental units to house the people being displaced by gentrification. A Thanksgiving tradition for decades, the Halls Hill turkey bowl team now had two residents of Halls Hill on the team. The others have been gentrified out of the community where most of them had lived for years.

In addition to Econ 101 I understand politics 101. [/quote]

I am impressed by the YIMBY marketing. A bunch of white middle class libertarians have embraced trickle down theory and applied it to housing and yet have somehow branded themselves as progressives?

[/quote]

Shamelessly so. Some even work for a client candidate who promise to “save” communities from affordable housing and density while simultaneously working for other clients and claim market development will bring you guessed it, affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If housing is a human right, then YIMBYs are part of the core problem.

https://www.housingisahumanright.org/what-is-a-yimby-hint-its-not-good/

These are the YIMBYs, people:

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sb-827-rallies-end-with-yimbys-shouting-down-protesters-of-color/article_42f1bb0c-c4c5-5401-a395-5aff1b28137c.html

NOVA YIMBYs are overwhelmingly white with a maybe a southeast Asian or two, one or two African Americans, and with a penchant for patronizing and condescending to lower income POC, or people they deem beneath their overly-educated standards.

They use lower income POC as props for accusing other people of racism when they oppose housing. And then when people point out that the housing won’t be affordable for lower income people they ask “who said it would????????”

Because the NIMBY plan to reduce housing cost is... what exactly?

Neither YIMBYs nor NIMBYs have a “plan to reduce housing cost.”

YIMBYs by another name are called real estate developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to an rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.

Are you planning to buy? If not, why do you care? People can choose to buy or not to buy. Or people can choose to rent. Owning is fine. Renting is fine. This initiative is not about investment opportunities for you; it's about housing for people.

Housing for people, yes.

Did you know that the current residents are also people? People that would be affected by an influx of rental apartments?

Please spare me your disingenuous libertarian fantasy of people doing what they want with their own properties. There have been multiple threads on this very site outlining the negatives to this effort. Please don't feign ignorance by trying to make anyone waste their time in explaining it all to you AGAIN.

Nobody has said that the current residents are not people.

By the way, the current residents (people) of the current oneplexes (housing) would not be affected by an influx of new multiplexes (housing) - they would be affected by an influx of new residents (people) living in the new multiplexes (housing). If you think it doesn't sound so great to say "I don't want a bunch of apartment renters in my neighborhood," you're right.

Did you decipher this yourself or did you have to go further up the cult leadership chain for guidance?

I thought that it was plain to see that, no, people in SFH neighborhoods do not want a bunch of rental apartment buildings.

Did you type that entire thing out with your little fingers thinking that you were being clever?

I can't imagine why pro-housing advocates are successfully getting candidates elected, and you're not.

For one thing they get one of their lobbyists appointed to a D.C. Ward redistricting panel and, using skills from the Trump campaign, he gerrymandered local districts. Then they go out and recruit and raise funds online for compliant candidates to vote their way on development, land use, preservation, etc. Their lack of interest in compromise and intolerance of other POVs (remember the AnC members who posed giving the middle finger to a small business?) dissuade others from engaging in the process. People are weary and tired and turned off. Is the result any wonder?

Which advocate appointed to which redistricting panel is the housing lobbyist? I am in Ward 3 and from what I could find about the Ward 3 one was that it had some retirees, a couple of small business people, and a couple of nonprofit and gov types. It looks like Mary Cheh and Christina Henderson appointed everyone. This was the panel that had all those boring meetings, then had Mary Cheh support it? Then Mendo, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If housing is a human right, then YIMBYs are part of the core problem.

https://www.housingisahumanright.org/what-is-a-yimby-hint-its-not-good/

These are the YIMBYs, people:

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sb-827-rallies-end-with-yimbys-shouting-down-protesters-of-color/article_42f1bb0c-c4c5-5401-a395-5aff1b28137c.html

NOVA YIMBYs are overwhelmingly white with a maybe a southeast Asian or two, one or two African Americans, and with a penchant for patronizing and condescending to lower income POC, or people they deem beneath their overly-educated standards.

They use lower income POC as props for accusing other people of racism when they oppose housing. And then when people point out that the housing won’t be affordable for lower income people they ask “who said it would????????”

Because the NIMBY plan to reduce housing cost is... what exactly?

Neither YIMBYs nor NIMBYs have a “plan to reduce housing cost.”

+1 The local MoCo buzzword "attainable housing" does not equal affordable housing. The real estate developers are the only clear winners in this as long as MoCo doesn't invest in adequate traffic planning and ways to have our already overcrowded schools absorb all these new people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If housing is a human right, then YIMBYs are part of the core problem.

https://www.housingisahumanright.org/what-is-a-yimby-hint-its-not-good/

These are the YIMBYs, people:

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sb-827-rallies-end-with-yimbys-shouting-down-protesters-of-color/article_42f1bb0c-c4c5-5401-a395-5aff1b28137c.html

NOVA YIMBYs are overwhelmingly white with a maybe a southeast Asian or two, one or two African Americans, and with a penchant for patronizing and condescending to lower income POC, or people they deem beneath their overly-educated standards.

They use lower income POC as props for accusing other people of racism when they oppose housing. And then when people point out that the housing won’t be affordable for lower income people they ask “who said it would????????”

Because the NIMBY plan to reduce housing cost is... what exactly?

Neither YIMBYs nor NIMBYs have a “plan to reduce housing cost.”

+1 The local MoCo buzzword "attainable housing" does not equal affordable housing. The real estate developers are the only clear winners in this as long as MoCo doesn't invest in adequate traffic planning and ways to have our already overcrowded schools absorb all these new people.

Don’t worry, the “plan” is to adjust school boundaries, shifting your kids around until everyone is equally miserable.

“while some individual schools are overcrowded, the system countywide is not”

https://montgomeryplanning.org/blog-design/2024/08/faq-curious-about-our-proposal-to-relax-single-family-zoning-weve-got-answers/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2BUW8_qM455xpguZ95QhxL1Wms0XQyN43Sb7RdfCImjh2JtyYUFQARsvE_aem_xKtETubtMdUUusfjAQN-UQ